GREEN CINE Already a member? login
 Your cart
Help
Advanced Search
- Genres
+ Action
+ Adult
+ Adventure
+ Animation
+ Anime
+ Classics
+ Comedies
+ Comic Books
+ Crime
  Criterion Collection
+ Cult
+ Documentary
+ Drama
+ Erotica
+ Espionage
  Experimental/Avant-Garde
+ Fantasy
+ Film Noir
+ Foreign
+ Gay & Lesbian
  HD (High Def)
+ Horror
+ Independent
+ Kids
+ Martial Arts
+ Music
+ Musicals
  Pre-Code
+ Quest
+ Science Fiction
  Serials
+ Silent
+ Sports
+ Suspense/Thriller
  Sword & Sandal
+ Television
+ War
+ Westerns


Public Discussions

topics
GreenCine General
Feedback
Have suggestions, criticism or praise for the GreenCine community? Post them here. Please maintain a sense of decorum here.
1062

O.k. people, time to return your dvds.
Topic by: sir78billy
Posted: July 5, 2005 - 11:14 AM PDT
Last Reply: September 21, 2012 - 11:55 PM PDT

page  1  2  3  4  5  6      prev | next
author topic: O.k. people, time to return your dvds.
kaream
post #101  on August 31, 2012 - 5:40 PM PDT  
Look, you guys are frustrated, as are we all. But you're not thinking clearly. I don't know anything more about the details of GreenCine's operation than you do, but let's set aside the conspiracy theorizing, and try to look at this rationally.

It's clear that GreenCine is operating on a shoestring. They can barely keep their website operating without very long refresh delays at times. They don't have Reed Hastings' money to buy hundreds upon hundreds of copies of every movie issued on DVD. One thing GC does do is to try to buy movies that their subscribers want, such as all Criterions, and sh!tloads of anime, for instance, that Hastings turns up his nose at, because they aren't big moneymakers for him.

It simply isn't true that non-green titles are just "wishlist" items. Look, just for instance, at the genre list for Serials, where you see a whole bunch of pale orange "Request for Rental" arrows instead of the red "Rent" arrows. These are "wishlist" titles. Is GC lying to us? What would be their motivation? Why would they go out of their way to make their subscribers angry?

I receive movies that are marked blue, yellow, and orange; Cinenaut says that he does also. Some subscribers have occasionally posted here that they have received a red-barred title.

I agree that their inventory method is overly optimistic; but the point is that they do not know, and cannot know what their inventory actually is. Subscribers who post on these boards are conscientious about watching our movies and returning them quickly; but we are a distinct minority. We all know people - or I do anyway - who if they don't have a set due date and overdue fines, will keep something out until they feel like getting around to it; and then they forget about it.

Personally I tend to suspect that GC maintains titles in inventory until they know their last copy is damaged, or are specifically notified that it is lost in the mail.

The point is, there is no conspiracy. Why would there be? Silencio says he has movies in his queue that have been the exact same color since 2006. That makes perfect sense to me, if not to him. That just means there aren't many copies, and the movie is in demand. Where is the "disdain"? The better question is, Where is the money for GreenCine to run out and buy more copies? Should we all volunteer to have our monthly fees doubled? That would certainly help.

I've asked that when a disc has been out out for a month, and other people are waiting for it, that GC send out a polite email requesting its return. This seems entirely reasonable to me. A month is more than enough time for anyone to get around to watching a movie. But I'm told that sending email reminders is contrary to GreenCine's policy. Well, it's a bad policy, but what can you do? Maybe they'll be willing to look at it again.
kaream
post #102  on August 31, 2012 - 7:23 PM PDT  
And speaking of conspiracy theories, one of the more absurd accusations occasionally posted here is that GreenCine actually has movies that we are waiting for, just sitting on the shelves in their warehouse but not sent out to anyone, apparently because GC is waiting for the person who is first up for it to have it as his/her top queue slot, and now open for another shipment.

This is hard for me to wrap my head around - it just doesn't make any sense. Their warehouse shelves are much more likely to be nearly empty all the time, except for stuff that no subscriber has anywhere at all in a queue. If they have a copy of a movie available, they will send it out immediately - either to the first person who requested it, or to whoever has it closest to the top of their queue.

(There has been some speculation as to which of these criteria takes precedence, or some combination of them. I had been given the impression that queue position trumps the order in which it was first requested by different subscribers, but Shiftless's much better knowledge of computer programming has convinced me that it should make more sense to be the other way around.)
Blumphf
post #103  on September 2, 2012 - 11:04 AM PDT  
kaream, I found your response to the gripes that have been posted in this thread to be a bit overly apologetic at best, and at worst downright circumventing the real issues that GC members are complaining about.

Addressing them point-by-point:

> On August 31, 2012 - 5:40 PM PDT kaream wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Look, you guys are frustrated, as are we all. But you're not thinking clearly. I don't know anything more about the details of GreenCine's operation than you do, but let's set aside the conspiracy theorizing, and try to look at this rationally.

Just exactly what is not rational about recognizing an aspect of GreenCine's business that fails to work properly and imploring them to address it and institute a fix? I can't speak for others, but I don't believe it has anything to do with a "conspiracy", which would imply that GC purposefully implemented this practice in order to deceive their customers, which I feel was not the case. What we have here is NEGLIGENCE TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES because complaints about them have been accumulating and, without any real clarifications from GC, speculations as to why "they are what they are" is beginning to run rampant.

>
> It's clear that GreenCine is operating on a shoestring. They can barely keep their website operating without very long refresh delays at times. They don't have Reed Hastings' money to buy hundreds upon hundreds of copies of every movie issued on DVD. One thing GC does do is to try to buy movies that their subscribers want, such as all Criterions, and sh!tloads of anime, for instance, that Hastings turns up his nose at, because they aren't big moneymakers for him.
>

This point has no bearing on this discussion. Yes, GC has a smaller inventory than NF. So what? It's not how many discs you have that's the issue, it's how you MANAGE that inventory that is.

> It simply isn't true that non-green titles are just "wishlist" items. Look, just for instance, at the genre list for Serials, where you see a whole bunch of pale orange "Request for Rental" arrows instead of the red "Rent" arrows. These are "wishlist" titles. Is GC lying to us? What would be their motivation? Why would they go out of their way to make their subscribers angry?
>

Sorry, but yes, it IS true that many of these titles CAN be classified as "wish" titles if, as I said, after years of being in someone's queue they NEVER change color. How can you defend a Blue availabilty title which is supposed to mean a few weeks wait at most, staying the same color for YEARS? How can you defend MULTIPLE Blue titles staying the same color for years? Kind of corrupts any faith in the Color Availability Code, dontcha think? As I said, I don't believe this is occurring from an intentional strategy by GC, however, it sure appears that this has been the result. Deliberate lying? No. Lying due to an unsatisfactory system that misleads subscribers into believing they'll get a title when they'll almost certainly not? Well...


> I receive movies that are marked blue, yellow, and orange; Cinenaut says that he does also. Some subscribers have occasionally posted here that they have received a red-barred title.

OK, let's talk specifics here. I don't believe any of the complainers ever said they never received non-Green films they've queued...like rain in a desert, it can happen. But just how often do you "receive" some of these non-Greens? Frequently? Occasionally? Rarely? I have received non-Greens myself, but I consider the occurrence of that to be unacceptable based on the number of them received compared to the huge amount I've queued that have been sitting in my queue for such long periods of time. After being a member for about 3 years now, in that time I've received about a dozen non-Greens including (gasp!) one Red title, so approximately, five per year (a generous estimate). To me, that qualifies as "seldom" receiving non-Greens. Maybe you've had better luck...Hoorah for you. But please ask yourself, are you the exception or the norm? At the rate I'm receiving non-Green titles, I'll finally clear my queue...in 60 years. And I don't think I'm alone here, either.

> I agree that their inventory method is overly optimistic; but the point is that they do not know, and cannot know what their inventory actually is.

Oh c'mon, that is total BS that GC "cannot know what their inventory actually is." One of the first lessons in Business 101 is if you're running a business that has a supply of goods you're selling is to accurately manage that inventory so that you're able to adequately supply the demands of your customers. If you can't do that then you're not operating your business properly and probably won't last for too long. Inventories don't always jibe down to knowing where every last single item is, but if they don't measure their stock at around a 98% or higher rate, that's a huge Fail.

>
> Silencio says he has movies in his queue that have been the exact same color since 2006. That makes perfect sense to me, if not to him. That just means there aren't many copies, and the movie is in demand. Where is the "disdain"?

Um, really?! It makes "perfect sense" to you that a title in a queue NEVER CHANGES? Really? What part of waiting years for a title that's marked as Blue or Orange and never changes color do you find defensible? Can you at least admit that that length of time spent waiting for a title qualifies as EXTREMELY LONG WAIT and should be classified as Red based on the current Color Code? That's if it's even still in stock?

>
> The point is, there is no conspiracy. Why would there be?

I agree, you're right--it's not a conspiracy...it's a case of negligence. But it doesn't matter what name we give it, it's a problem. And as a problem, it should be fixed, wouldn't you agree. This isn't a case of finally cracking Einstein's Unified Field Theory...it's a simple case of addressing a practice that desperately needs revising and updating.

Look, it wouldn't be too difficult for GC to run a query on it's database based on a few criteria such as Date Sent, Date Returned, and Last Activity. Highlight the selections based on a time-frame that specifies every item with no activity either in or out should be marked as no longer available. I'd make it six months of no activity, but even if it were a one year period of no activity that would still remove a lot of Not Available titles from the inventory, I bet.

These titles would change to being "Requests" for future availability and moved to under that category. If they turn up at some point, just move them back into general circulation. Personally, I find it a lot easier to accept and live with knowing GC is not promising me I'll get a title in some vague, indefinite period of time that has proven to be mostly a pipe-dream (or a "wishlist" as I referred to it), rather than just being upfront about it and disclosing that certain titles have been gone from their stock for so long that they're almost certainly not coming back.

Intentions are one thing, but results are ultimately what matter. The term "bait-and-switch" was used to refer to what GC is doing by listing many titles that are no longer being shipped. As a (mostly) trusting individual, I don't think this was GC's intention because I believe they actually had these discs at some point in the past. But the results of hardly anyone getting these other color discs is starting to make many subscribers question exactly what the hell is going on here.

As subscribers, we're all big boys and girls here...simply tell us what isn't really available anymore so we can start looking for it somewhere else if we really want to get it. I don't really want to buy many of these titles myself, I'd prefer to rent them which is why I'm here after allbut I'd like to know if I should go ahead and pursue them that way if GC is not really going to come through with providing them to me. Is that really too much to ask for?


kaream
post #104  on September 4, 2012 - 1:24 AM PDT  
:-)

Good post, Blumpf. I acknowledge your points. Just out of curiosity I've now looked back to the beginning of Feedback, and find that generally similar complaints were made ten years ago, starting in October 2002. The procedures back then were somewhat different - they marked movies as "short wait" and "long wait" - but the biggest difference seems to be that the then managing partner for GreenCine, Dennis Woo, actually posted responses frequently to problems. Not that the problems got fixed, though.

This place has always been right on the razor's edge financially, operating more by the seat of their pants than anything else. A few years ago, I forget when, it was sold, I think to some corporate outfit. Of course this was all very hushed up, and we were never told what the circumstances were. I'm sure everyone hoped they would finally get their act together. Naturally, it didn't happen. But at least it didn't get worse, which had been a general fear.

So where do you go from here? Bitching and complaining just falls into a black hole. Reasonable and helpful suggestions fall equally into that same black hole. All we're really accomplishing by posting on these Feedback boards is blowing off steam.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm here because there's just something - a lot of things - I plain do not like about NF. I do like the idea of trying to help support a struggling independent source of good and important movies, where despite all the constant incompetence and some nonsensical policies, the staff obviously has their hearts in the right place, and they do struggle to try to make it work. It's a half-assed and screwed-up outfit, but I suppose you could think of that as being one of its charms.

Well, it helps to think of it that way. It reduces the blood pressure.

You are absolutely right that any disc they haven't seen in six months is probably never going to show up. And it would the easiest thing in the world for them to program this into their computer. But it isn't going to happen. Why? I don't know. Nobody knows. Probably no one there knows. All you can do is accept it. Or not, as the case may be.

And besides, GreenCine does have an awful lot of movies that no one else has. Including some older stuff that's out of print. You've said you're out on the East coast - anywhere near a city with a good public library? You can find the most amazing stuff in a library's movie collection.




> On September 2, 2012 - 11:04 AM PDT Blumphf wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> kaream, I found your response to the gripes that have been posted in this thread to be a bit overly apologetic at best, and at worst downright circumventing the real issues that GC members are complaining about.
>
> Addressing them point-by-point:
>
> > On August 31, 2012 - 5:40 PM PDT kaream wrote:
> > ---------------------------------
> > Look, you guys are frustrated, as are we all. But you're not thinking clearly. I don't know anything more about the details of GreenCine's operation than you do, but let's set aside the conspiracy theorizing, and try to look at this rationally.
>
> Just exactly what is not rational about recognizing an aspect of GreenCine's business that fails to work properly and imploring them to address it and institute a fix? I can't speak for others, but I don't believe it has anything to do with a "conspiracy", which would imply that GC purposefully implemented this practice in order to deceive their customers, which I feel was not the case. What we have here is NEGLIGENCE TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES because complaints about them have been accumulating and, without any real clarifications from GC, speculations as to why "they are what they are" is beginning to run rampant.
>
> >
> > It's clear that GreenCine is operating on a shoestring. They can barely keep their website operating without very long refresh delays at times. They don't have Reed Hastings' money to buy hundreds upon hundreds of copies of every movie issued on DVD. One thing GC does do is to try to buy movies that their subscribers want, such as all Criterions, and sh!tloads of anime, for instance, that Hastings turns up his nose at, because they aren't big moneymakers for him.
> >
>
> This point has no bearing on this discussion. Yes, GC has a smaller inventory than NF. So what? It's not how many discs you have that's the issue, it's how you MANAGE that inventory that is.
>
> > It simply isn't true that non-green titles are just "wishlist" items. Look, just for instance, at the genre list for Serials, where you see a whole bunch of pale orange "Request for Rental" arrows instead of the red "Rent" arrows. These are "wishlist" titles. Is GC lying to us? What would be their motivation? Why would they go out of their way to make their subscribers angry?
> >
>
> Sorry, but yes, it IS true that many of these titles CAN be classified as "wish" titles if, as I said, after years of being in someone's queue they NEVER change color. How can you defend a Blue availabilty title which is supposed to mean a few weeks wait at most, staying the same color for YEARS? How can you defend MULTIPLE Blue titles staying the same color for years? Kind of corrupts any faith in the Color Availability Code, dontcha think? As I said, I don't believe this is occurring from an intentional strategy by GC, however, it sure appears that this has been the result. Deliberate lying? No. Lying due to an unsatisfactory system that misleads subscribers into believing they'll get a title when they'll almost certainly not? Well...
>
>
> > I receive movies that are marked blue, yellow, and orange; Cinenaut says that he does also. Some subscribers have occasionally posted here that they have received a red-barred title.
>
> OK, let's talk specifics here. I don't believe any of the complainers ever said they never received non-Green films they've queued...like rain in a desert, it can happen. But just how often do you "receive" some of these non-Greens? Frequently? Occasionally? Rarely? I have received non-Greens myself, but I consider the occurrence of that to be unacceptable based on the number of them received compared to the huge amount I've queued that have been sitting in my queue for such long periods of time. After being a member for about 3 years now, in that time I've received about a dozen non-Greens including (gasp!) one Red title, so approximately, five per year (a generous estimate). To me, that qualifies as "seldom" receiving non-Greens. Maybe you've had better luck...Hoorah for you. But please ask yourself, are you the exception or the norm? At the rate I'm receiving non-Green titles, I'll finally clear my queue...in 60 years. And I don't think I'm alone here, either.
>
> > I agree that their inventory method is overly optimistic; but the point is that they do not know, and cannot know what their inventory actually is.
>
> Oh c'mon, that is total BS that GC "cannot know what their inventory actually is." One of the first lessons in Business 101 is if you're running a business that has a supply of goods you're selling is to accurately manage that inventory so that you're able to adequately supply the demands of your customers. If you can't do that then you're not operating your business properly and probably won't last for too long. Inventories don't always jibe down to knowing where every last single item is, but if they don't measure their stock at around a 98% or higher rate, that's a huge Fail.
>
> >
> > Silencio says he has movies in his queue that have been the exact same color since 2006. That makes perfect sense to me, if not to him. That just means there aren't many copies, and the movie is in demand. Where is the "disdain"?
>
> Um, really?! It makes "perfect sense" to you that a title in a queue NEVER CHANGES? Really? What part of waiting years for a title that's marked as Blue or Orange and never changes color do you find defensible? Can you at least admit that that length of time spent waiting for a title qualifies as EXTREMELY LONG WAIT and should be classified as Red based on the current Color Code? That's if it's even still in stock?
>
> >
> > The point is, there is no conspiracy. Why would there be?
>
> I agree, you're right--it's not a conspiracy...it's a case of negligence. But it doesn't matter what name we give it, it's a problem. And as a problem, it should be fixed, wouldn't you agree. This isn't a case of finally cracking Einstein's Unified Field Theory...it's a simple case of addressing a practice that desperately needs revising and updating.
>
> Look, it wouldn't be too difficult for GC to run a query on it's database based on a few criteria such as Date Sent, Date Returned, and Last Activity. Highlight the selections based on a time-frame that specifies every item with no activity either in or out should be marked as no longer available. I'd make it six months of no activity, but even if it were a one year period of no activity that would still remove a lot of Not Available titles from the inventory, I bet.
>
> These titles would change to being "Requests" for future availability and moved to under that category. If they turn up at some point, just move them back into general circulation. Personally, I find it a lot easier to accept and live with knowing GC is not promising me I'll get a title in some vague, indefinite period of time that has proven to be mostly a pipe-dream (or a "wishlist" as I referred to it), rather than just being upfront about it and disclosing that certain titles have been gone from their stock for so long that they're almost certainly not coming back.
>
> Intentions are one thing, but results are ultimately what matter. The term "bait-and-switch" was used to refer to what GC is doing by listing many titles that are no longer being shipped. As a (mostly) trusting individual, I don't think this was GC's intention because I believe they actually had these discs at some point in the past. But the results of hardly anyone getting these other color discs is starting to make many subscribers question exactly what the hell is going on here.
>
> As subscribers, we're all big boys and girls here...simply tell us what isn't really available anymore so we can start looking for it somewhere else if we really want to get it. I don't really want to buy many of these titles myself, I'd prefer to rent them which is why I'm here after allbut I'd like to know if I should go ahead and pursue them that way if GC is not really going to come through with providing them to me. Is that really too much to ask for?
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------

Cinenaut
post #105  on September 4, 2012 - 2:01 PM PDT  
Updates to New to Greencine sometimes result in non-green titles shipping.

It's a tough business model. If you stock niche movies that not many people are interested in, what do you do when the last copy breaks or isn't returned? Do the few people that are interested in that obscure movie justify replacing it?

Mainstream movies that are popular might only be popular for a few months, and then you have a ton of stock that nobody rents.

No wonder Netflix is trying to shove everybody into streaming movies!
Blumphf
post #106  on September 5, 2012 - 8:42 AM PDT  
> On September 4, 2012 - 2:01 PM PDT Cinenaut wrote:
>
> It's a tough business model. If you stock niche movies that not many people are interested in, what do you do when the last copy breaks or isn't returned?

Well, in the case of GreenCine, just remove it as a choice from the active inventory. If the *last* copy is gone, then the customers shouldn't be able to queue it. Pretty simple...and conscientious, too.


> Do the few people that are interested in that obscure movie justify replacing it?

They probably couldn't even if they wanted to. For many discs, as soon as they're oop, their prices raise to double or quite more. Wouldn't make economic sense.

>
> No wonder Netflix is trying to shove everybody into streaming movies!

As someone who often searches for discs by Director or Actor/Actress names, I've noticed that many titles are being allowed to go out of print by the studios. This is especially true for Warner Brother and MGM/UA titles; many of those titles will soon only be available for new purchases as inferior dvd-r's in their made-on-demand programs.

It isn't a case of Netflix creating policy, merely adapting to what the studios have ultimately decided for them. If the discs aren't produced anymore, what choice does Netflix have but to try and steer it's customers to the streaming model?

Cinenaut
post #107  on September 5, 2012 - 9:38 AM PDT  
> On September 5, 2012 - 8:42 AM PDT Blumphf wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Well, in the case of GreenCine, just remove it as a choice from the active inventory. If the *last* copy is gone, then the customers shouldn't be able to queue it. Pretty simple...and conscientious, too.
>
> ---------------------------------

Good point. Or at least make them all red, because there have been cases where they were able to find a new distributor or whatever.

kaream
post #108  on September 6, 2012 - 7:50 AM PDT  
> On September 5, 2012 - 8:42 AM PDT Blumphf wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > On September 4, 2012 - 2:01 PM PDT Cinenaut wrote:
> >
> > No wonder Netflix is trying to shove everybody into streaming movies!
>
> As someone who often searches for discs by Director or Actor/Actress names, I've noticed that many titles are being allowed to go out of print by the studios. This is especially true for Warner Brother and MGM/UA titles; many of those titles will soon only be available for new purchases as inferior dvd-r's in their made-on-demand programs.
>
> It isn't a case of Netflix creating policy, merely adapting to what the studios have ultimately decided for them. If the discs aren't produced anymore, what choice does Netflix have but to try and steer it's customers to the streaming model?
>
>
> ---------------------------------

Actually, it's both the studios and Netflix. The fact is that manufactured DVDs are already an obsolete format.

With VOD streaming the studios can control who can access their product, and when, and can go 99% of the way toward eliminating piracy. If your kids like watching the same movie over and over, each viewing becomes new profit-generating rental. If the format is impossible to capture, there's no more torrenting.

Netflix benefits for a different reason - no more having to buy gazillions of physical discs, sticking labels on them, plus the sleeves, the mailers, and the two-way postage, and then tossing out bad discs after 20 rentals, which they say is their average lifespan; not to mention fooling around with the warehousing and the staff to handle it all.

The part of the equation that boggles my mind - but I'm old-fashioned that way - is the customer base that prefers to stream. But there's a lot of things I don't understand about what people prefer. Such as needing a wall-size display, and then happily watching a movie on a phone, for god's sake.

salyavin
post #109  on September 6, 2012 - 10:16 AM PDT  
Greencine was sold in 2007 to Wantedlist
http://cinematech.blogspot.com/2007/09/didja-know-greencine-sold-to-wantedlist.html

As far as the people who prefer streaming I know many and I think I understand it. They don't have to choose a show and wait a few days for it. They come home from work and just want to watch something, they select and watch it immediately. Instant entertainment.
Blumphf
post #110  on September 6, 2012 - 9:58 PM PDT  
>
> Actually, it's both the studios and Netflix. The fact is that manufactured DVDs are already an obsolete format.

You're not the first person I've heard call DVDs already "obsolete." I think the use of that word is a bit...harsh, because although I'd agree the dominance of DVDs in the market will diminish, I wholeheartedly feel the format is not going to completely vanish the way VHS, LD, Vinyl albums, or cassette tapes did. Just for the mere fact it's a digital medium, and relatively inexpensive to produce, I think they'll be plenty of niche companies still releasing films on disc in ten or even twenty years from now.

>
> With VOD streaming the studios can control who can access their product, and when, and can go 99% of the way toward eliminating piracy. If your kids like watching the same movie over and over, each viewing becomes new profit-generating rental. If the format is impossible to capture, there's no more torrenting.

Here's where I'm a bit fuzzy, and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there programs in existence now that can capture and record streaming images? I don't know any specifics about the quality, or the limitations of copies generated this way, but if it can be done in some fashion, won't better and easier to use programs follow? Hasn't anything that's been produced by man in the history of the world also been counterfeited or bootlegged eventually? I don't know why digital transmissions, no matter what kind of ultra-secure encoding they're using, would be an exception.


kaream
post #111  on September 7, 2012 - 1:35 PM PDT  
Salyavin, thanks for that link for GC's sale.


> On September 6, 2012 - 9:58 PM PDT Blumphf wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> >
> > Actually, it's both the studios and Netflix. The fact is that manufactured DVDs are already an obsolete format.
>
> You're not the first person I've heard call DVDs already "obsolete." I think the use of that word is a bit...harsh, because although I'd agree the dominance of DVDs in the market will diminish, I wholeheartedly feel the format is not going to completely vanish the way VHS, LD, Vinyl albums, or cassette tapes did. Just for the mere fact it's a digital medium, and relatively inexpensive to produce, I think they'll be plenty of niche companies still releasing films on disc in ten or even twenty years from now.
>
>
Yeah, obviously I'm premature in calling DVDs "obsolete", just when the larger-format Blu-ray discs are only recently introduced and just now starting to find a broader market. The problem is limited broadband. Once this issue starts to go away, the movie companies will be very aggressive in phasing out any disc media.
>
>
> >
> > With VOD streaming the studios can control who can access their product, and when, and can go 99% of the way toward eliminating piracy. If your kids like watching the same movie over and over, each viewing becomes new profit-generating rental. If the format is impossible to capture, there's no more torrenting.
>
> Here's where I'm a bit fuzzy, and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there programs in existence now that can capture and record streaming images? I don't know any specifics about the quality, or the limitations of copies generated this way, but if it can be done in some fashion, won't better and easier to use programs follow? Hasn't anything that's been produced by man in the history of the world also been counterfeited or bootlegged eventually? I don't know why digital transmissions, no matter what kind of ultra-secure encoding they're using, would be an exception.
>
>
I'm just as fuzzy as you are, and I'm sure much more so. But for a lot of streaming formats, and probably on older equipment, a computer automatically captures the stream on its own. I'm using MS XP with IE8. Many but not nearly all video streams write themselves into C:\Documents and Settings\[username]\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5. In older versions of Windows you could access this subfolder directly, but by the time of XP you can see down only as far as TIF, and then you have to type in the hidden "\content.ie5". This takes you to a series of lower-level folders given randomly assigned 8-character names. Sorting by size in each of these quickly gives you probable files to look at; players for all these such as the popular FLV format are available as free downloads. (If it's something you want to save, be sure to copy or move it out of TIF to a documents folder, because the TIF folders constantly overwrite themselves. And you'll probably find a lot surprising stuff in there that you never saw displayed on your monitor, and will have no idea where it came from.) But a lot of streaming video does not install itself; and I'm quite sure that Silverlight will not.

Googling "capture netflix stream" brings up http://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=58200, which is interesting but now over three years out of date, and I see some more how-to's further down. I'm pretty confident that Netflix is staying ahead of the game, though.
>
> ---------------------------------


Silencio
post #112  on September 14, 2012 - 11:20 AM PDT  
It's now Septmeber 2012.

I have hundreds of movies on my list that have not changed color since 2007.

It doesn't matter if they are Blue, Orange, Yellow or Red. They never change color and they never get mailed to me.

I continue to manage my list by trying to keep top priority non-Green films in the Top 10 of my queue (although they never get sent & I end up renting them elsewhere and then removing them and moving something else in). But the only thing I get mailed are whichever Green Film I put into my Top 100, usually in the high 90s behind 90+ non-Green titles.

It's not a conspiracy, it is complete and utter laziness by Greencine. I am not expecting them to check the shelf for all those movies each time one is returned, but the Top 10 should definitely be looked for to see if they are on the shelf prior to mailing me the Green title at #90.
MRoth
post #113  on September 14, 2012 - 3:04 PM PDT  
Have titles on my queue from day one (also color bar hasn't changed) still haven't gotten.
Silencio
post #114  on September 15, 2012 - 10:45 AM PDT  
> On September 14, 2012 - 3:04 PM PDT MRoth wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Have titles on my queue from day one (also color bar hasn't changed) still haven't gotten.
> ---------------------------------


everyone has the same situation.

fact is, there is no conspiracy, it's simply that Greencine doesn't give a flying eff.

Their system is broken. They don't care if a movie is on the shelf when your request comes up. They care where you are in the queue for that film. It can be languishing in someone else's queue at #175, but they have dibs and that movie will ROT on the shelf prior to anyone else getting a crack at it.
shiftless
post #115  on September 16, 2012 - 12:31 PM PDT  
> On September 15, 2012 - 10:45 AM PDT Silencio wrote:
> ---------------------------------
They don't care if a movie is on the shelf when your request comes up.
> ---------------------------------


Yes because when you have a computerized check-in and check out system, and a computer assigns available titles to subscribers with a weighted algorithm, human beings "not checking shelves" is always the reason you don't get the film you want.

I haven't gotten a green title in a few weeks. Slots 80-100 are always green titles in my queue, and lately it's been nothing but yellows, oranges, and blues getting sent. But I also sign up for new titles as soon as I can, on Tuesdays, when they are added the the coming releases blog.

I think the titles in my queue that have been there the longest are the result of GC running out of copies of a given title but not officially recognizing it, and either 1. ordering more copies, or 2. Taking it out of the catalog entirely. I imagine it's hard to tell when all the copies are "gone" when people can have them checked out for as long as they like. I've written support a few times about specific titles and gotten good response.

I think new subscribers are at a disadvantage because they are adding titles to their queue last, and are behind a lot of others who have already queued it up. Having it #1 in your queue far outweighs your time/date of when you add it to your queue, so it's still possible for new people to get non-green titles, but once you get past the top slots in your queue, you'll just have to be patient.

I think it would help their inventory tracking if they sent out an email every 3 months to subscribers stating, "according to our records you have the following dvds checked out" With a link to declare the dvd as lost if the user desires. It's not a "hi, you've had this dvd a long time please think about returning it" email as previously suggested on these boards, but it does give the subscriber a reminder, and could help keep inventory more up-to-date if it gets declared lost. It could also motivate people to fraudulently declare a dvd as missing, so maybe it's not a good idea, but it's something to think about.

kaream
post #116  on September 21, 2012 - 3:29 AM PDT  
> On September 16, 2012 - 12:31 PM PDT shiftless wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> I think the titles in my queue that have been there the longest are the result of GC running out of copies of a given title but not officially recognizing it, and either 1. ordering more copies, or 2. Taking it out of the catalog entirely. I imagine it's hard to tell when all the copies are "gone" when people can have them checked out for as long as they like. I've written support a few times about specific titles and gotten good response.

I could well be wrong, but I still go on the assumption that GC is basically a shoestring operation, understaffed and underfunded, with everybody there running as fast as they can. There's no such thing as an unlimited budget for purchases, no matter how big an outfit you might be. There are always tradeoffs between buying newly-issued movies and restocking older ones.

>
> I think new subscribers are at a disadvantage because they are adding titles to their queue last, and are behind a lot of others who have already queued it up. Having it #1 in your queue far outweighs your time/date of when you add it to your queue, so it's still possible for new people to get non-green titles, but once you get past the top slots in your queue, you'll just have to be patient.

Shiftless, when you say "Having it #1 in your queue far outweighs your time/date of when you add it to your queue", you have me confused, because I thought you were earlier arguing that queue position would be much too hard to program, since it's (at least theoretically) shifting toward the top of the queue, plus dealing with people reorganizing their queues all the time. I'm not a programmer, and I don't know. I got the impression years ago from Underdog that queue position was controlling - he didn't specifically say it like that, though - but until you brought up the problem of programming, I had been asserting here that queue position overrides date/time. Can you explain where I'm misreading what you meant?

>
> I think it would help their inventory tracking if they sent out an email every 3 months to subscribers stating, "according to our records you have the following dvds checked out" With a link to declare the dvd as lost if the user desires. It's not a "hi, you've had this dvd a long time please think about returning it" email as previously suggested on these boards, but it does give the subscriber a reminder, and could help keep inventory more up-to-date if it gets declared lost. It could also motivate people to fraudulently declare a dvd as missing, so maybe it's not a good idea, but it's something to think about.

I'm sure this is exactly why they don't want to send out email reminders of any sort at all. But that's still no reason for them not to be proactive in inventory management, and simply write off discs they haven't seen in some arbitrarily set time limit, of whatever length. It would certainly save their subscribers - and themselves - a lot of unnecessary grief.
shiftless
post #117  on September 21, 2012 - 5:09 PM PDT  
>>There are always tradeoffs between buying newly-issued movies and restocking older ones.
>>

That doesn't wash with me. If you don't have it, and haven't already ordered more, it should not be listed as available in the catalog. That might be seen as fraud in some circles.


>>I had been asserting here that queue position overrides date/time. Can you explain where I'm misreading what you meant?
>>

Two different things. Someone was arguing that in addition to a "when you queued it" queue, and the slot it was currently in the queue, there was an additional consideration of how long it had been in that particular queue slot position. Which is nonsense. It looks at queue position at the time the program is run, and weights it heavier than when you queued it vs. another subscriber. If you and I both had Casablanca in position #3 (and no one else had it any higher in their queue, for this example) and you had queued it up first, you would get any available copies. If you had it at slot #4 I think it's possible I'd get it instead even though it's only 1 slot difference. If neither of us got it, and the next day you changed your position to #3 (same as me), you'd get the supposedly available copy. That's my understanding of it anyway, I do not have any verification I'm 100% right.
kaream
post #118  on September 21, 2012 - 11:55 PM PDT  
> On September 21, 2012 - 5:09 PM PDT shiftless wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> >>There are always tradeoffs between buying newly-issued movies and restocking older ones.
> >>
>
> That doesn't wash with me. If you don't have it, and haven't already ordered more, it should not be listed as available in the catalog. That might be seen as fraud in some circles.


"I imagine it's hard to tell when all the copies are "gone" when people can have them checked out for as long as they like." I think that's just the point - they don't know. And apparently no individual disc gets removed from the catalog until they have verified that it's either broken or declared lost, rather than writing off discs they haven't seen since forever. This is really a different issue from the allocation of limited funds between buying new titles vs restocking popular titles with low inventory.

>
>
> >>I had been asserting here that queue position overrides date/time. Can you explain where I'm misreading what you meant?
> >>
>
> Two different things. Someone was arguing that in addition to a "when you queued it" queue, and the slot it was currently in the queue, there was an additional consideration of how long it had been in that particular queue slot position. Which is nonsense. It looks at queue position at the time the program is run, and weights it heavier than when you queued it vs. another subscriber. If you and I both had Casablanca in position #3 (and no one else had it any higher in their queue, for this example) and you had queued it up first, you would get any available copies. If you had it at slot #4 I think it's possible I'd get it instead even though it's only 1 slot difference. If neither of us got it, and the next day you changed your position to #3 (same as me), you'd get the supposedly available copy. That's my understanding of it anyway, I do not have any verification I'm 100% right.
> ---------------------------------

Okay, my confusion - this explanation makes sense. Thanks very much.
page  1  2  3  4  5  6      prev | next

about greencine · donations · refer a friend · support · help · genres
contact us · press room · privacy policy · terms · sitemap · affiliates · advertise

Copyright © 2005 GreenCine LLC. All rights reserved.
© 2006 All Media Guide, LLC. Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide®, a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC.